Sometimes I fear “You need to test” has become just a different way to say “I don’t know.”

Indeed, “You need to test” has become a cop out.

Yes, I believe everything should be up for a test at all times when reasonable.

But that doesn’t mean you start with two random variables and pit them against each other to see which comes out on top. There’s a better way.

In that warrior forum thread I likened this to waiting on a room full of typing monkeys to perfectly replicate Shakespeare. It may technically happen at some point, but it’s the long… even wrong way to go about it.

Instead of testing two random variables, you should start with a proven, successful model and start testing different variables from there.

And if that’s what you do, then asking others for “what works” deserves a better response than stopping the conversation with the call to ‘test it’ yourself.

In conclusion, I think responding with “You need to test” can actually be the WRONG answer when you can find plenty of evidence already pointing in one direction if you choose to look.

And while testing may always be the final answer, modeling success should often be the first step.

10 thoughts on “Copywriter Bonks His Head, Loses Faith In Testing”

I agree, and in fact your post gave me pause for thought. I’m a big split testing advocate, but at the same time, just saying “Test!” can be a bit of a cop out.

For example, copywriters know there are certain principles behind headlines, so just by looking at two different headlines, we may be able to predict which is likely to work better.

As you say, testing gives the final answer, but modeling success and also using time-tested principles is a great starting place.
.-= Paul Hancox´s last blog ..Why People Aren’t Taking Your FREE Stuff =-.

But also thought you might be interested to know what Jim Stone of SplitTestAccelerator.com is putting together for getting ideas for testing. [The site is having a revamp this week – from the feedback he got I suspect!]

Thanks for an excellent post. Your answer within the post is the “right” answer if there can be such a thing.

Think about how a scientist may set about to approach an unbounded problem, one not fully defined.

It must start with a series of observations upon which a hypothesis to be tested will rest.

In marketing, the repeatedly proven and observed principles and phenomena would mark the bases of such hypotheses…which could then be set up in A-B or other tests.

The point is that there must be some fundamentally grounded principles which both shape the direction of inquiry/observation, and which in turn get to be shaped by the findings of your subsequent tests.

Of course Ryan also brings up a great point. Tests should be “strategically relevant” and prioritized in accordance to what the overall objective is.